This is very unfortunate. Apple being totally hands off, other than running the iTunes podcast directory, is one of the best things that’s ever happened for podcasts.
I like my 3rd party app (Overcast). I don’t want to have to use 3 podcast apps to listen to all my podcasts.
I think I agree with some of the podcast app developers: if it’s not available in any app it shouldn’t be called a ‘podcast’.
Completely agree that if it’s not accessible on any app then it’s not a podcast. I also would pay for a podcast app that could guarantee that the audio file was the same for all listeners.
I wish the later could be possible. I have no idea how podcast-ads work but lately i noticed some podcasts giving me seemingly location-dependent ads. (about something in a nearby major city)
either everyone is getting advertisements for a very dallas targeted ad, or are the podcast companies making several versions of the podcast and serving different ones to different people? sounds like a lot of extra work to me, but I suppose its not hard to automate stitching a few ads into an audio file.
I agree - actually I've gotten into the habit of trying to track down the original RSS feed for each podcast I listen to. Often the link shared by the podcaster will be to rehosters like Google Play or iTunes, or lesser-known services, that have tracking and probably the ability to insert custom ads. The worst is when they make the elitist move of only linking iTunes, making their podcast unlistenable (on mobile at least) to most people worldwide.
But most of the time the original file is getting pulled by the rehoster from an unprotected RSS feed, and these can be easy to find. You can get the RSS feeds for Soundcloud, as an example. Others are hosted on Libsyn.com, and you can often find them by searching for the podcast name and "site:libsyn.com" in the search engine of your choice.
That said, I don't listen to podcasts enough any more to say whether this is a universal solution at all. Actually, the fact that podcasts have unblockable ads is one of the main reasons I no longer bother.
There’s not a universal solution, in part because many times the dynamic ad-insertion is something the podcasters themselves want (or it’s one of the terms of using a certain podcast host).
I have a podcast with a podcasting network that sells our ads for us. To my knowledge, they don’t do any dynamic ad insertions for older episodes (though if they did, I wouldn’t necessarily be upset, provided they were inserted the right way), but plenty of podcasting networks DO do that and it’s something the creator’s endorse because it means they are getting paid more money.
There are third-party podcast apps that rehost feeds and may add their own stuff to the content — that’s another issue entirely — but most dynamic ad-insertion stuff is happening with the permission/consent of the people that make the podcast, either explicitly or as terms they agreed to in order to get hosted/have ads sold on their behalf.
That's a fair point. Whatever service is originally hosting the content might well be doing the dynamic ad insertions too. My assumption is that in at least some cases while the ads are desired by the podcaster, they aren't inserted until a later stage by an aggregator. So there's some hope of getting at the original source.
At least, when I've been able to track down sources, they seem to be mostly hosted on generic CDNs, which gives me some hope that the same file is being served to all listeners.
That’s generally the case — and depending on the hosting system, that could change too. The really huge companies in the space (Art19, Stitcher/Midroll, Wondery, Megaphone, Podbean) are all doing dynamic ad insertion on different scales — but given the way the RSS feeds are constructed, I don’t know specifically how the dynamic aspect works for each provider.
I do know that early on, companies who did this stuff (like NPR, who was really early to this game and has been doing some type of dynamic ad-insertion for more than a decade) often had separate versions of the audio file. So you could have an ad-free version of the file (maybe for users in certain geographic regions, if an ad-buy was specifically targeted) and then other versions of the file with ads built-in — and an algorithm would determine what version a user accessed based on a variety of parameters. If that’s the case, yeah, you would probably be able to figure out if multiple versions existed and then request the ad-free version from CDN or whatever.
At this point, it’s my understanding that most of the dynamic insertion is happening server-side — where ads are inserted based on campaign timing and maybe geo-targeting) at the point of the download or stream request (though I imagine even here, most of what is served is coming from a CDN, I just mean the initial request). That way, the download/stream always has “current” ads, even if the show itself is years old. (I don’t know how often they update those different versions — I would imagine you have 6-week campaign as an example where all episodes get an insert and are then cached on the CDN and then after the campaign ends a new file is generated and cached). That isn’t to say you couldn’t potentially still get access to a copy of a file without inserts — but I bet it would be a lot more difficult.
dynamic ad-insertion is
something the podcasters
themselves want
Is DAI really more profitable than the host doing the plug?
I always assumed the sponsor plugs some youtubers put into their videos [1] would be much higher impact than dynamic pre-roll ads, and would therefore command a much higher price.
I'm a bit late to the thread, but if the difference is "the same person is reading the ad" some of what i think are dynamic ads are being done in a similar way. most of the ads within podcasts i listen to are read by the hosts anyway.
When there are ad spots in the middle where i imagine it could be pretty easy to cut in an ad dynamically. Some podcasts do a little music fade in/fade out before and after an ad, which is usually a script or something from the advertiser read by the podcast host. I assume the the transition and ad are mostly done dynamically? although i have no way of knowing for sure.
Presumably at some point advertisers aren't willing to pay for out-of-date plugs, at which point it might become profitable to cut out the plug and replace it with other ads dynamically.
It’s called dynamic ad insertion. Online radio stations use it all the time for localized ads based on IP address. Did some work for a set of radio stations in the way of building a diagnostic web player for the metadata in HLS streams debugging their new ad system. (Using HLS.js which I have to say I’m grateful for as it’s a brilliant library)
So they don’t have to stitch together one new audio file per local but place metadata markers in the audio file metadata that prompts ad insertion. These usually have a marker for length and the systems handle number of plays and placement spots. Don’t know as much about that end. HLS being a chunked format would allow the files to be stitched back together on the client end as well with ads in place.
Wouldn’t be surprised if they’re doing this. Also wouldn’t be surprised if many Podcasts are broadcast via HLS as it’s native in Apple software and Apple devices. Someone else with more knowledge would have to confirm or deny that, though.
No HLS in podcasting because of its legacy but just-in-time building of audio files with some caching is plenty fast. Some folks who do this use old internet radio streaming technology with the max buffer size set to infinity, but most of the time it's operating with plain old mp3s.
For sure? Not sure that HLS is bound to AAC (though that’s the standard) as it’s just the container format. Could be transmitted MP3 10s chunks split and added metadata encoded by the distributor. Either way if you’re right about the JIT and buffering it would be trivial to stitch some ad markers in at that point.
But I’m sure independents/lower-volume shows at the very least operate like you’ve said. Makes sense.
The guys on .NET Rocks have talked a bit about this & being able to tweak & update ads over time. One big reason is people still listen to their old shows & they would like those ads to still have value.
I believe the host of your podcast files that people download will send different audio files to different people with different ads targeted in.
Real question - is it dynamic ads that bug you, or the implication that there is some personal tracking motivating the dynamic ads (rather than, say, calendar based ad buys or impression limits)?
Neither. It’s the implication that the show I’m listening to might be subtly varying their content based on whatever metric. Imagine the next cambridge analytica making a podcast app and doing their facebook shenanigans with the news show you trust.
I don’t care about the ads much but they’re impossible to distinguish from content, for those who would wish to do this.
That's a novel concern, at least to me - and it's not clear to me that we have seen any examples of _content modification_ based on psychographics. Curation and promotion based on targeting seems plenty pernicious at least at the moment.
Form what I read in the article it doesn't sound all that terrible. If Apple were to remove all non-Apple podcasts from its platform, that would be bad. This is just Apple supplementing what's already available.
It's very much like Apple rolling out original television shows on the AppleTV. It's not like HBO is getting kicked out.
It makes sense to me that Apple would do this. Since it's making podcasts a separate program on the Mac, it wants to make it more popular and useful.
As far as I can tell, there's nothing stopping another person, company, or organization from producing podcasts that blow Apple's offerings out of the water and still distributing them through Apple. When that happens, I'll worry. Until then, this seems like an OK way to draw attention to podcasts as a whole.
What is the difference between exclusive podcasts and making a website that only runs on Safari?
In both scenarios it is a company giving their product an artificial advantage. There's no technical reason that a website should only run on one browser, it kind of feels the same way with podcasts.
Then again Netflix makes Netflix originals, which are only available on Netflix, and I don't mind that, so I guess my viewpoint is contradictory.
> Then again Netflix makes Netflix originals, which are only available on Netflix, and I don't mind that
There are arguments for why this could be a bad thing. Originals/exclusives have the effect of giving an "unfair" advantage to the company who makes them, because to watch them you need to subscribe to their service. This allows them to compete in avenues other than price and quality of service. This is a similar issue to movie studios owning theater chains, the customers benefit from being able to go see the latest blockbuster at any theater they want, instead of only at company theaters.
The counterpoint is that this makes exclusives more valuable to a streaming service than the average tv show, which means more might get funded than if exclusives were illegal
I mean, yeah, all else being equal, it would be better for consumers to have access to any content they want on any app or device. But it's a bit difficult to imagine how "making exclusives illegal" would work, exactly. Would content producers be required to sell their content to every distribution network for the same price, so that every streaming service could, if they wanted to, make a profit by effectively charging more for the content?
What if the content producer just wanted to sell the raw video file of their movie to consumers directly? I.e. you go to the movie's website, pay, and download an .mp4 file? That's not much different than how Netflix works, except that DRM makes it tricky for the layperson to move that file around to other devices or video players.
So perhaps what this law would look like is just a ban on DRM, although even if that happened, and the content producer had an app or website that took payment and served DRM-free video files, there's no simple way to move that file around, particularly on mobile phones or TV streaming boxes, so I think the sheer convenience of using the content producer's app or website would still result in largely the same "unfair" advantage to large content producers or unions of content producers.
Another legal alternative might be to simply require content producers and distribution networks to be owned by different companies. I believe that idea has been proposed by Elizabeth Warren and others, although I don't know if it's a very fully-fledged proposal or if it would be a good idea. It seems like the distribution networks would still have massive economies of scale and thus the few really big networks would have leverage over customers and content producers that would still result in a lot of exclusivity.
> Would content producers be required to sell their content to every distribution network for the same price, so that every streaming service could, if they wanted to, make a profit by effectively charging more for the content?
No. The platform (Netflix, Hulu, etc.) would have to have a different ownership structure than the content creator. This would allow the studios to sell their shows to whoever they want under whatever terms they want (presumably to the highest bidder). This should theoretically let the free market work effectively.
This (separation of platform from product on said platform) is the basis for many proposals for breaking up "big tech" and is IMO the way to go.
I don't understand why we're all of a sudden so concerned with exclusivity. Many high-profile games are platform exclusives, HBO is exclusive, Spotify has artist-exclusive recordings. The world still spins 'round.
There exists a sliding scale between "100% an agnostic platform" and "100% creates and hosts only exclusive content", both of which have existed for decades, and now people are worried that Apple is funding podcasts?
People have argued against all of those. Apple is the new one, hence people will argue against it now.
Plus, at least Netflix et all try to be cross-platform (even if we Linux users are often left in the cold). Will I need an Apple device to listen to these podcasts? If so, that's rather different than those other cases.
Since 1987 in the United States, aside from news, TV networks aren't allowed to make and distribute their own content.
That hasn’t been the case for years.
Look no further than ABC/Disney and “Agents of Shield”, CW (owned jointly by CBS/Warner) and all of the DC related programs, Fox (until Disney bought part of Fox), FoxNetworks and the Simpsons.
> Since 1987 in the United States, aside from news, TV networks aren't allowed to make and distribute their own content.
Where the heck did you get this idea from?
This isn't true at all. The vast majority of TV Networks shows are made by the studio that owns the network, because there's a huge financial incentive to do so. Heck, the reality is that half the shows you probably like remain on air despite weak ratings because they are made by the studio that owns the network and so they are taking into account the profits from international sales.
The vast majority of TV Networks shows are made by the studio that owns the network
Studios don't own networks. Studios make programs. Those programs are distributed through distribution companies to stations.
Due to corporate consolidation, it has become common in recent years for a big corporation (Disney, for example) to own a production studio, a TV network, and a distribution company. But they have to exist as independent entities from each other.
Because of common ownership, bundling deals, and audience expectations it is common for a TV show to stay within a particular corporate parent, but it is not alway the case. There are a number of TV stations in the US that air content from two or even three of the big four networks.
That's why at the end of all the network entertainment TV shows you see the distributor listed. It is a separate company.
There are also plenty of audio productions which cost money but which would otherwise clearly be identified as "podcasts" if they were free and listed on podcast directories. The Howard Stern Show, for instance.
So I think the issue here is clearly just about the semantics of the term "podcast" and how people apparently strongly identify the term with free audio content available on multiple platforms. Presumably people wouldn't be too upset with Apple hiring Howard Stern to do a video interview series distributed on its premium video streaming platform. But apparently people would be upset if Apple hired Howard Stern to do an audio interview series distributed on its so-called "Podcasts" app.
Apple having original podcasts, EVEN IF FREE, means there are now two classes of citizens on its platform. First class (Apple stuff), and ‘the rest’.
And I don’t trust that ‘the rest’ will continue to get good treatment like they have. It’s too easy to stop featuring big podcasts from companies who are now your podcast competitors.
That would only be bad if Apple had a monopoly or the other platforms all copy Apple and it cannibalizes the freedom of podcasting in general. But if it’s limited to a few ‘premium’ shows/platforms - while 99% of other content is open - I don’t really see it as a problem.
Particularly if the only way they can finance the shows is by limiting it to their platform, then I’d rather have them still produce that content than not at all…
Sometimes it’s the only way it makes sense as a business, there is no open alternative.
Spotify, Netflix, and every other streaming service functions this way with non-portable content and providing clients on every platform. While piracy fills the void for those who can’t pay or access the platform (for geographic reasons or w/e).
But I have to agree with the OP, it isn’t really a podcast anymore if it’s tied to one platform. It’s more like an on-demand XM radio show than a podcast.
The difference is that movies & TV shows aren't typically given in open data formats - podcasts, or more specifically RSS feeds, are. By announcing Apple exclusive podcasts, they're stating their intent to create a silo around a data format that historically has been open.
Apple's podcast app used to be great. I used to be able to easily subscribe and download all the episodes for a show, navigate to any show, and get back to what I was listening to all in a few taps.
As it stands now, if you want to add all of the episodes from a show that you have listened to for the past 14 years that somehow was not subscribed to on your device, you have to go to the show and subscribe, go to available episodes and tap on the + next to every.single.episode and even then sometimes episodes get lost.
You can set the custom settings to download all available, but it won't download the episodes of a subscribed podcast if you haven't explicitly added them (tap that + sign)
Also, can we just set the screen podcast app opens on to our own choice? I literally have to go through an extra menu just to see my show listing. Yes, I've created a "station" for the shows but that's immensely inconvenient if I want to listen to one show continuously without having to navigate to the shows page (guess I have to create a station for every show...)
I don't think the Apple funded shows will be bad. This article really seems to be creating a mountain out of nothing. Hopefully, this means that some lucky podcaster or media group makes $$$ off of a deal with Apple.
It's gone now that everybody has a pocket supercomputer, but it's stunning just how far it went in completely changing the way we relate to music, and audio in general.
I don't think it changed the way I relate to music at all, it was just one more step in the ladder. I had a walkman before I had CD player before I had a MiniDisk Player before I had an iPod before I had Spotify.
To me the iPod and iTunes around 2006 were there peak of my interaction with music. Before or after everything has been worse.
I've seriously considered building my own music hardware company just to recapture a few features and UX experiences which for me at least made music a much bigger part of my life.
I see a lot of good podcast apps for Apple but I couldn't find a nice one for Android. I would like to pay for one, but I can't a reasonable one that allows me to make my playlists and speed listen without drowning me in ads. Sure I can spend hours trying each one of the dozens, but would my fellow HN have any suggestion?
I just bought it. Looks really nice. I like to speed listen to news podcasts, but music ones must be heard at 1x speed. It is very nice that it has customized settings by podcast.
AntennaPod is a fantastic FOSS podcast app for android. It doesn't have in-app purchases, advertisements or other such misfeatures.
There is a speed setting that speeds things up without sounding distorted. You can toggle between a configurable list of speeds (I switch between 1.0x and 1.15x depending on the podcast). I just wish it would remember different speeds for each podcast -- currently the speed behaves as a global setting.
The UI is set up so that when you download a new episode it goes into the reproduction queue. I don't think it has playlists but in my experience being able to reorder the episodes in the queue is all I need because I rarely listen to the same episode twice.
I've been using DoggCatcher for years. Searching for podcasts to subscribe to could use some work, but I don't do that very often anyway. They don't show any ads either.
Although I personally don’t like Overcast because of the ad injection (which I consider immoral) and the hypocrisy of its author being anti-ads in general (not to mention having built Tumblr, which turned out to be a porn obfuscation service), I agree that this is a bad move by Apple. Doesn’t matter: podcasts are going to go the way of TV, radio, and movies anyway.
Overcast doesn’t insert ads into podcasts. Marco objected to including mystery meat binary blobs where he didn’t control the code or ads being served. He controls both the code and the ads for Overcast.
Yes, I do purchase subscriptions to news web sites occasionally, because I don't consider writers being paid to be intrinsically immoral. Given the choice to pay them with ads and pay them directly, I'll take the latter. I suppose "rely on other people seeing ads and/or paying for content to subsidize me" is also an option.
I've been using Overcast, and have noticed that with certain podcasts, the audio ad-breaks seem to come in the middle of sentences, and there's no segue from podcast content to ad-read. Is that what you're referring to by "ad injection"? Or is just that the creator sucks at editing?
That’s because the podcast in question probably uses a network/hosting service that auto-injects ads. Overcast does NOT inject ads into podcasts. It offers banner ads in the app for podcasts (and you can pay to turn that off), but it doesn’t inject any content into the podcasts themselves.
I like my 3rd party app (Overcast). I don’t want to have to use 3 podcast apps to listen to all my podcasts.
I think I agree with some of the podcast app developers: if it’s not available in any app it shouldn’t be called a ‘podcast’.